Hi,
I've just read Colin's reply again - more thoroughly this time! I should have
made it clear that I was thinking of paths where there's only a slight
discrepancy - up to 40m say. For example where there's no longer a stile
through a hedge because everyone heads for the nearest gate. Or because people
walk in a straight line from A to be across a field instead of following the
curved PROW. In such a situation is it appropriate to not tag anything as a
PROW or to mark the de facto path as a PROW? Sorry for any repetition.
Rob
----- Original Message -----
From: Rob
To: talk-gb@openstreetmap.org
Sent: Sunday, February 05, 2017 1:03 PM
Subject: Re: [Talk-GB] Footpath Open Data is not always accurate.
Hi,
I'm a relative newcomer to contributing to OSM but trying to get to grips as
quickly as possible with the consensus on various topics, one of which is
PROWs. The emails below raise questions I've had for a while.
I'm hoping for guidance as paths can include these two types:
1. Definitive PROWs (but subject to subsequent Orders - whether deviations
or extinguishments)
2. De facto paths generally thought to be PROWs.
Most of the time the two are coincident.
Where they're not coincident, is it the case that we should map the de facto
paths?
In such a situation should the de facto paths be tagged as PROWs and/or given
the highway authority's reference?
Where there's a difference should we also map the definitive PROWs in some
way (even if they go through a private house - I'm not making that up)?
I realise there's an important but separate issue of copyright if the route
can be determined only from the definitive map (based on the OS map).
Regards,
Rob
----- Original Message -----
From: Colin Smale
To: talk-gb@openstreetmap.org
Sent: Sunday, February 05, 2017 11:33 AM
Subject: Re: [Talk-GB] Footpath Open Data is not always accurate.
My understanding is that the definitive data held by the appropriate local
authority is exactly that, definitive. There may be legitimate errors in there
of course, but where a path has been willfully and legally rerouted, that is a
different type of error - lack of currency, i.e. an order has been made to
reroute the path but they haven't yet got round to updating the Definitive Map
and the Definitive Statement.
Any paths that no longer follow the official route (as per the DM/DS)
should not be tagged as PROW and probably as access=permissive unless they go
across otherwise public land. The official route is still a public right of
way, it's just no longer usable as such.
Do you have a way of feeding these discrepancies back to Somerset CC, to
establish whether they are true errors, lack of currency or illegal reroutings?
http://www.ramblers.org.uk/advice/rights-of-way-law-in-england-and-wales/definitive-maps-explained.aspx
--colin
On 2017-02-05 11:19, Dave F wrote:
Hi
If you're using local authority data/os open data to map paths, as a
contributor current is in Somerset, please don't assume their layout
corresponds with what's on the ground or is more accurate than what's mapped in
OSM. These official ways are often outdated, being based on redundant features
such as grubbed up fences & hedgerows. Gate & stiles occasionally get moved.
These tweaks often don't make it back to the Definitive Map.
Please verify using this data doesn't make OSM less accurate.
Cheers
DaveF
---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus
_______________________________________________
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
www.avast.com
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus
_______________________________________________
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
